HN user
I will not give them permission to store data about me, personally.
So how can they target me specifically?
Unless of course they do not honor the agreement...
For me it's also not a problem. An ad is easily spottable, because an ad tries to make you buy something.
I still find it funny. Looks like one of the last straws to pull...
The problem will always be to get your hands on hardware.
Software never was the problem.
And the US calls itself a democracy and kills innocent people abroad.
I don't see any merit in these simplistic world views.
The world isn't Lord of the Rings, it's more A Song Of Ice And Fire.
It's incredible people still discuss the pelicans... But then again, the ad just works.
Sunk cost fallacy is already too established for anything else.
I do that as well, since I am my own business
Exactly that.
I wasn't reachable by phone for company related stuff outside my regular working hours unless I had on-call-duty, which means it was working hours.
I don't get why people would be proud about not setting boundaries.
Many years ago my mom chose to have the company pay for her private phone number.
When she stopped working for them, they informed her, that the number legally belonged to them.
It was not a problem for her, because she wanted to get rid of the number anyway, else too many old clients would call.
But it was an interesting situation nonetheless.
Java includes the JVM which is subject to way more security issues and needs much more frequent updating.
Then releasing more often is better, because the security fixes get out of the door faster?!
If previously a Java Update took 3 years, then the corresponding JVM version would be 3 years old as well.
If there were patch release in between, I see no difference to now.
Unless you're forced at gunpoint, how can there be too many releases?
Rust releases every 6 weeks, since 2016...
If you don't want to update, just don't?
If you feel (!) pressured, you should work on that.
Mhm, I just wonder how many samples they get and how much time they have to come to the conclusion.
Like a short example is easier to grade, but not in the same ballpark as a whole codebase.
Then, by giving them context or by post-training, you can make them sample non-average parts of the distribution they learned.
How do you derive that something is "below average" or "average" or "above average"?
You haven't been using AI extensively I presume...
Ex falso quodlibet
I've been programming a long time and considered myself among the top in my domain
I am not trying to attack you, but you considered yourself that... I don't know whether you actually were and frankly I don't care.
AI is an average coder.
It was trained on all code the code that could be found.
Not just code written by genius programmers like Carmack and Bellard.
Given that it's average, I'd prefer a human coder above average :)
I am using Rust since 2016 productively... before I dabbled with it.
Rust is not compiling any slower than a comparable C++ codebase for me.
It is compiling much slower than a managed language like Kotlin, C# etc. though. Which is an unfair comparison anyway.
The problem with e.g. gamedev is the iteration cycles. It's very creative work and not so much your average engineering job (apart form game engine dev).
But again, that's an unfair comparison, because even in Unity and many if not most other game engines, there is a scripting language that is used for most of the game logic, that doesn't need hyper performance...
Still, when compared to such languages, Rust indeed does compile slowly AND one has to say: Rust is selling itself not only as a safe, blazingly fast systems programming language these days, but it also is used for its type system etc. and then, when you come from a managed language, compile times really suck.
(Although debug builds are better, they are not an option for game dev for example, because the binary is just too slow then... 200fps vs. 20 :X)
I can understand when you need the absolute best performance and you decide to drop to down to C++
What? Rust generally doesn't have worse performance to C++, so this argument makes no sense at all to me.
and I also relate with just personal preference, but beyond those it seems a no brainer to me.
That's another argument altogether.
It's totally fine to have preferences and decide to go with them of course.
Depends on whether the answer o. Stackoverflow was given willingly or at gunpoint ^^
The sad part is that you work in FINANCE of all things and this happens there.
Like: What competence do decision makers in FINANCE have, when they are this oblivious to economics?
That's just two different scales.
Weapons are a great product for weapon dealers and manufacturers as well, just not so much for the people killed by them (or their families, or survivors)
So sure, if making a shitload of money is the metric, YouTube is a great product.
That wasn't the point of the person you answered to though.
Good != Successful.
I assume that's why they wrote good and not successful.
It's an average software product with incredible scaling behind it and a lot of elbow grease to keep it chumming along, but it's not great software by the definition of "bugs actually get dealt with"
People will not just lay down and wait for death's sweet embrace though.
There is a whole lot of people involved in food production and the owners can't own it without people willing to let them own it.
As soon as money is out of the equation many powerful lose their power.
Capital loses all it's value the moment it's all in the hands of a few.
If people cannot even get a piece of the cake anymore, the cake doesn't hold any power over them.
So if the rich and powerful just hoard the money, they will lose.
If they hoard weapons: well, if they need people to operate the weapons (or serve them), they will still fall.
The thing is: They look invincible. They are not though. They are human, they bleed, they fear, they die just like the rest of us.
I feel the same about the endless hype, so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder
Your condition is called AI psychosis. Good news is: it's curable!
If we don't have access to capital, we will abolish capital altogether.
This still backfire to the oligarchs
Because the topic of the article is about the US?
Including you?
Totally fine. Then let's just not pretend these "AI"s are somehow better at it.
That's the whole problem with all of these discussions. It's whataboutism and "You're holding it wrong" allegations.
We are living in a strange mixture of 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World